Search

OBJECTIVE. We sought to describe the clinical use of n-of-l trials for attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder in publicly and privately funded family and specialized pediatric practice in Australia. METHODS. We used a within-patient randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of stimulant (dexamphetamine or methylphenidate) versus placebo or alternative stimulant using 3 pairs of treatment periods. Trials were conducted from a central location using mail and telephone communication, with local supervision by the patients' clinicians. PATIENTS. Our study population included children with clinically diagnosed attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder who were aged 5 to 16 years and previously stabilized on an optimal dose of stimulant. They were selected because treatment effectiveness was uncertain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES. Our measures included number of patients recruited, number of doctors who used the service, geographic spread, completion rates, response rate, and post-n-of-1 trial decisions. RESULTS. Forty-five doctors across Australia requested 108 n-of-1 trials, of which 86 were completed. In 69 drug-versus-placebo comparisons, 29 children responded better to stimulant than placebo. Immediately posttrial, 19 of 25 drug-versus-placebo responders stayed on the same stimulant, and 13 of 24 nonresponders ceased or switched stimulants. In 40 of 63 for which data were available, posttrial management was consistent with the trial results. For all types of n-of-1 trials, management changed for 28 of 64 children for whom information was available. DISCUSSION. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder n-of- 1 trials can be implemented successfully by mail and telephone communication. This type of trial can be valuable in clarifying treatment effect when it is uncertain, and in this series, they had a noticeable impact on short-term management. Key Words n-of-1 trials, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder Abbreviations ADH D--attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder DSM-IV--Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, ATTENTION-DEFICIT/HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD) affects >7% of all children (especially boys) (1) and may cause poor school performance, family distress, impaired social relationships, low self-esteem, accidental injury, lower perceived quality of [...]

Abstract Background It is commonplace for lay caregivers to overlook their own health concerns when supporting someone with advanced cancer. During this time, caregivers' needs as patients are often marginalised by health professionals, including General Practitioners (GPs), who may miss the breadth of caregivers' needs by focusing on the practicalities of caregiving. GPs traditionally rely on patients to raise their concerns, and then respond to these concerns, but caregivers as patients may be disinclined to cue their GP. The norms of engagement when caregivers consult their GP are less defined, and how they interact with their GP regarding their own health is under-explored. This sub-study investigates the norms, assumptions and subtleties which govern caregiver-GP consultations, and explores factors affecting their interaction regarding caregivers' own health concerns. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with six lay caregivers and 19 health professionals in Brisbane, Australia, and analyzed the interview transcripts thematically. Results Traditional norms of engagement are subjected to assumptions and expectations which caregivers and GPs bring to the consultation. Practice pressures also influence both parties' capacity and willingness to discuss caregivers' health. Nonetheless, some GPs monitor caregivers' health opportunistically. Their interaction is enhanced by the quality of the caregiver-GP relationship and by the GP's skills. Conclusions Caregivers are caught in a paradox whereby their health needs may become subsumed by the care recipient's needs in a setting where patient needs are normally scrutinised and supported. Caregivers may not raise their health concerns with their GP, who instead may need to cue them that it is timely and safe to do so. The routine use of a prompt may help to address caregivers' needs systematically, but it needs to be complemented by GPs' desire and capacity to engage with patients in a caregiving role. The potential difference GPs can make to the health of these patients is substantial.

Abstract Background Specialist palliative care is being increasingly recognised and developed to improve end-of-life care in many developed countries. However, only a small proportion of the total number of patients with incurable, progressive diseases actually has direct contact with specialist palliative care practitioners. Using the German situation as an example, the main purpose of this paper is to argue that the emphasis on specialist palliative care services without a similar encouragement of primary palliative care will deliver a constrained service. Discussion For the vast majority of people with incurable, progressive diseases, good palliative care delivered by General Practitioners and community nurses, with access to specialist support when needed, is the optimal response. In Germany, specialist palliative care in the community was established in the 2007 health care reforms. However actual and potential delivery of palliative care by general practitioners and community based nurses has been sorely neglected. The time-consuming care of palliative patients and their families is currently far from accurately reflected in German, indeed most European primary care payment systems. However, it is not just a question of adequate financial compensation but also of the recognition of the fundamental value of this intense form of holistic family medicine. Summary It is imperative palliative care carried out by community nurses and general practitioners is better recognised by health professionals, health insurers, government and the scientific community as a central part of the delivery of health care for people in the last phase of life. Health systems should be arranged so that this critical role of general practice and primary care is intentionally fostered. Palliative care carried out by generalists needs an identity at an academic and practical level, developing in concert with specialist palliative care.

Abstract Background Chronic disease management requires input from multiple health professionals, both specialist and primary care providers. This study sought to assess the impact of co-ordinated multidisciplinary care in primary care, represented by the delivery of formal care planning by primary care teams or shared across primary-secondary teams, on outcomes in stroke, relative to usual care. Methods A Systematic review of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL (all 1990–2006), Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2006), and grey literature from web based searching of web sites listed in the CCOHA Health Technology Assessment List Analysis used narrative analysis of findings of randomised and non-randomised trials, and observational and qualitative studies of patients with completed stroke in the primary care setting where care planning was undertaken by 1) a multi-disciplinary primary care team or 2) through shared care by primary and secondary providers. Results One thousand and forty-five citations were retrieved. Eighteen papers were included for analysis. Most care planning took part in the context of multidisciplinary team care based in hospitals with outreach to community patients. Mortality rates are not impacted by multidisciplinary care planning. Functional outcomes of the studies were inconsistent. It is uncertain whether the active engagement of GPs and other primary care professionals in the multidisciplinary care planning contributed to the outcomes in the studies showing a positive effect. There may be process benefits from multidisciplinary care planning that includes primary care professionals and GPs. Few studies actually described the tasks and roles GPs fulfilled and whether this matched what was presumed to be provided. Conclusion While multidisciplinary care planning may not unequivocally improve the care of patients with completed stroke, there may be process benefits such as improved task allocation between providers. Further study on the impact of active GP involvement in multidisciplinary care planning is warranted.

Background: End-of-life discussions often are not initiated until close to death, even in the presence of life-limiting illness or frailty. Previous research shows that doctors may not explicitly verbalize approaching end-of-life in the foreseeable future, despite shifting their focus to comfort care. This may limit patients' opportunity to receive information and plan for the future. General Practitioners (GPs) have a key role in caring for increasing numbers of patients approaching end-of-life.Objective: To explore GPs' thought processes when deciding whether to initiate end-of-life discussions.Methods: A qualitative approach was used. We purposively recruited 15 GPs or GP trainees from South-East Queensland, Australia, and each participated in a semi-structured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.Results: Australian GPs believe they have a responsibility to initiate end-of-life conversations, and identify several triggers to do so. Some also describe caution in raising this sensitive topic, related to patient, family, cultural and personal factors.Conclusions: These findings enable the development of approaches to support GPs to initiate end-of-life discussions that are cognizant both of GPs' sense of responsibility for these discussions, and factors that may contribute to caution initiating them, such as anticipated patient response, cultural considerations, societal taboos, family dynamics and personal challenges to doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background As doctors who provide care across the life-course, general practitioners (GPs) play a key role in initiating timely end-of-life discussions. Nonetheless, these discussions are often not initiated until close to death. Given the ageing of the population, GPs will be confronted with end-of-life care more often, and this needs to become a core skill for all GPs. Objective To describe GPs' approach to initiating end-of-life discussions. Methods Fifteen GPs or GP trainees from South-East Queensland, Australia, were purposively recruited to participate in a semi-structured interview. We analysed transcripts using a thematic analysis. Results GPs' approach to initiating end-of-life discussions was summarized by four themes: (1) Preparing the ground; (2) finding an entry point; (3) tailoring communication and (4) involving the family. Conclusions Emphasis on the doctor–patient relationship; assessing patient readiness for end-of-life discussions; and sensitive information delivery is consistent with factors previously reported to be important to both GPs and patients in this context. Our findings provide a framework for GPs initiating end-of-life discussions, which must be tailored to patient and GP personality factors. Further research is required to evaluate its outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]